Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Veronica Brown

July 31, 2013

July 31, 2013

Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Veronica Brown

Statement of Support Issued by Tribal Governments and Leading Native American, Civil Rights, Child Welfare and Legal Advocates along with Arizona and New Mexico State Attorneys General to Stop Violation of "Baby Veronica's" Civil Rights by South Carolina Courts

Washington, DC (July 31, 2013) - Today, the Native American Rights Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court in South Carolina to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts. The filing comes after the South Carolina Supreme Court issued two controversial orders to the state's family court on July 17 and 24, calling for the removal of Veronica from her father and a transfer her to the adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest.

The lawsuit was supported in a national statement released today by a broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, adoption advocates, legal authorities, tribal governments, and Native American advocacy groups. These groups and individuals joined with the National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and National Indian Child Welfare Association in releasing the national statement of support for Veronica's civil rights, and the rights of all children, to a hearing of best interest.

The litigation was filed on behalf of Veronica, by Angel Smith, an attorney appointed as counsel for the child by the courts of the Cherokee Nation, in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, and asks the Court to determine whether Veronica has a constitutionally protected right to a meaningful hearing in the state courts to determine what is in her best interests. Furthermore, the litigation asserts that Veronica, as an "Indian child" under the Indian Child Welfare Act, has a federally protected right to have the state courts fully consider and appropriately weigh her best interests as an Indian child. Daniel E. Martin, Jr., the judge for the family court system of South Carolina, is named as the defendant in the suit.

According to the filing, Veronica "doubtless has a liberty interest in remaining with her father and such an interest justifies at a minimum a plenary hearing on her current status, her relationships with others and her genuine need for stability... Despite the finding of the family court and the implicit assumption by the Supreme Court of South Carolina that [Veronica's] best interest would be served by being with her father, two years later the court now determines, despite the passage of time and [Veronica's] stage of development at age four, that her 'best' interests will now be served by being removed from him and given back to the adoptive couple. Again, this order is without any consideration to the present circumstances, psychological and emotional well-being, and future impact on [Veronica]. This is an arbitrary result, depriving [Veronica] of any opportunity to be heard on her own behalf, irrespective of the competing interests of the adult litigants in her young life."

Also today, on behalf of broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, legal authorities, tribal governments and Native American advocacy groups, the National Congress of American Indians, along with the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association released a national statement of support for Veronica's civil rights to be upheld. The statement of support has been endorsed by a broad coalition of tribal governments, state and federal legal authorities including two state attorneys general - Arizona and New Mexico - civil rights institutions such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, child welfare and adoption organizations including the Child Welfare League of America, and leading national and regional Native advocacy organizations representing the interests of almost every tribe located within the United States (see full list below).

According to the letter:

[T]he rights promised to our children are being compromised in the courts of the State of South Carolina ... The recent [South Carolina Supreme Court] ruling in the case denies the basic fundamental right of an almost four-year-old Indian child to a hearing of her 'best interests' before removing her from her biological father after almost two years of child-rearing, bonding and establishing a loving home environment. Plainly stated, this is a denial of Veronica's human rights and constitutional rights to due process as a citizen of the United States.

The following organizations and individuals have signed on to the letter of support for the civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of Veronica:

Attorneys General

The Office of Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne

Attorney General of the State of New Mexico Gary K. King

Civil Rights, Child Welfare, and Adoption Advocacy Organizations

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Child Welfare League of America

North American Council on Adoptable Children

Voice for Adoption

Consortium for Children

Adopt America Network

The Adoption Exchange

Spaulding for Children

Three Rivers Adoption Council

Applied Research Center

Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC

Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum

Center for Social Inclusion

Demos

Friends Committee on National Legislation

League of Rural Voters

National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association

Tribal Nations in Support

Cherokee Nation -Principal Chief Bill John Baker

California Valley Miwok Tribe - Chairperson Silvia Burley

Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska - Vice President Lowell Halverson

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation- Les Minthorn, Chairman of the Board of Trustees

Carla F. Fredericks, Co-Director, American Indian Law Program Associate Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School

Eric Eberhard, Distinguished Indian Law Practitioner in Residence, Center for Indian Law and Policy

Seattle University School of Law

Jennifer Weddle, Chair, Federal Bar Association Indian Law Section

Kristen Carpenter, Co-Director, American Indian Law Program Associate Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School

Lorie M. Graham, Professor of Law, Co-Director, International Law Concentration Suffolk University Law School

Background

On July 17 and July 24, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued two controversial orders to the state's family court calling for an expedited transfer of Veronica Brown to the South Carolina-based adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest. It is standard procedure that all custodial transfers, including adoption proceedings, require a hearing to determine the best interest of the child in advance of any transfer proceedings, an essential step the South Carolina Supreme Court failed to take, thus denying Veronica the right to have her best interests considered. One year ago the South Carolina Supreme Court, followed the family court's finding that it was in the best interest of Veronica to be with her father stating: "Likewise, we cannot say that Baby Girl's best interests are not served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared for if raised by Father and his family."

Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights.

This site contains links to other web sites that may be of interest to you. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) / Children's Bureau (CB) does not endorse the views expressed or the facts presented on these sites. Their contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views or policies of the Children's Bureau. Access to this information does not in any way constitute an endorsement by the Department of Health and Human Services. Furthermore, ACF/CB does not endorse any commercial products.